It’s pretty obvious that iiandyiiii is completely correct about all this.
The ability to predict the popular vote is the essence of all polling predictions. The national popular vote does not directly determine the winner of the presidential election, but it’s not as if modelers aren’t doing their very best when they try to predict it. They are, and the extent to which they’ve been successful is a valid indicator of their success at this basic and fundamental polling skill.
:eek:
I think I’m going to have to frame this.
I call 'em as I see 'em …
You know this correction, but this is the Straight Dope, where nothing is too pedantic to point out :).
I predict that there’s only a one in three chance that Bob will take an umbrella to work tomorrow, and Lakaia has only a one in three chance of taking an umbrella to work tomorrow, and Bill and Linda and Jiminez and Jo all have only a one in three chance of taking an umbrella to work tomorrow.
If all of them take an umbrella to work tomorrow, that doesn’t make me a pretty bad predictor. It just means that the one-in-three event happened.
We should be careful about dinging polling agencies–and statisticians–for missing a lot of results when the true results were both within the margin of error and also were related to one another.
I wonder if you can share the basis for this confidence.
I’m aware that Price won by a big margin, but Price was a multi-term incumbent. That’s not a good predictor for the margin by a newcomer. (Trump won by about 1%.)
I would be pleased if the Republican won, but that’s not a reason to assume that will happen. Looks to me like a toss-up or Ossuf is a slight favorite, in line with the betting and the polls. I’m curious as to the basis for confidence that these are off.
AJC poll: Ossoff opens lead over Karen “Keep 'em Barefoot and in the Kitchen” Handel in Georgia’s 6th.
What is it with Republicans and spelling? They use “Democrat” Party instead of Democratic Party. It’s Ossoff.
How much did Handel’s “I don’t believe in a living wage” gaffe hurt her chances?
PredictIt won’t let me register; says the service is not available in my area. I suppose it’s because the site is basically gambling and I live in Las Vegas, so… um… 
The race, as predicted, is tightening.
I suspect that Handel will probably get just enough votes to win in a squeaker. It’ll come down to turnout, and when you factor in the historical and demographic advantages that a republican enjoys in this particular district, it’s hard to bet against it. However, Ossoff is well-funded, not running as a scary liberal, and probably riding strong anti-Trump sentiments.
I think Trump needs this win badly. If Handel loses then I think it’s the first solid piece of evidence that #neverTrumpers can use to hit the eject button before the real election next year. Even if Handel wins, I think the Democrats have to feel encouraged that they were again competitive in a GOP stronghold. But the Democrats still need a message – just hating Trump isn’t enough. In fact, if the Democrats do somehow manage to get Trump forced out of office and Pence takes over, they’d better damn well have a campaign strategy ready.
Actually, that last bit makes me wonder about the first part: the other elections since Trump took office, the ones where the Republican endorsed by Trump won: were you thinking – during each of those – that “Trump needs this win badly”; and did you think that “the Democrats have to feel encouraged” after the losses?
I actually did feel that way about the Montana race, though to a lesser degree. But I think this race is different because of how typically conservative this voting district is and also because Trump’s popularity seems to be now in a slow but steady decline. We’re possibly getting to a point where Republicans might start to question Trump’s value to them and begin to imagine life without him.
I’m not sure that a race where neither of the candidates is an incumbent tells us much about how the majority of the races are going to play out, since most of those will involve incumbents. Those Congresscritters have an amazing capacity of getting themselves re-elected.
Interesting article in The Nation.
Its thesis, roughly, is that we’re too focused on a few high-profile races; while we look at those, we’re missing the larger story of a bunch of Sanders-inspired progressives winning primaries and special elections at the local level around the country, both in solidly Democratic districts and even in places with traditional Republican majorities.
(The article has a lot more examples, but it lacks statistics; I’d be interested to see stats)
[Interviewer: “I guess I want to know why you think gay parents are not as legitimate as heterosexual parents.”
Karen Handel: “Because I don’t.”](https://twitter.com/funder/status/875506783393021952)
Well, that settles that, I guess.
But Bricker’s got his money on Handel. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Over the last six hours or so this race has swung from about 58/42 Ossoff to even. Am I missing a body slam or something? Swings like this usually happen for a reason.
My money is on Handel because I predict, with real-world consequences for me if I am wrong, that she will win.
In other words, this is about being right: being accurately able to predict the outcome of real world events, as opposed to offering empty predictions based on desired outcomes as opposed to actual real world considerations.
The SDMB thrives on the model of a bunch of left-leaning people telling each other solemnly that the left-wing outcome will happen. And if it does, they congratulate each other; if it does not, they incur no ridicule or stigma for incorrect predictions. They simply move on to the next discussion. Trump wasn’t going to win; then the Stein recount was going to fix things; then the “Hamiltonian electors,” would give the election to Hillary anyway (or to an acceptable Republican); then Congress could refuse to count the electors votes. All of these were discussed in serious, extensive threads over days; all of them vanished after they were no longer possible.
All of them shared this characteristic: they were expressions of hopeful, wishful desire, not sober predictive analysis. And while some of the threads certainly acknowledged that the scenarios might not happen, others – especially the Trump election itself – brooked no dissent.
All of this to say: I am writing this in advance of the Georgia election. I may be wrong. I think my analysis, especially at 42 cents to win a dollar, was a good investment. But I don’t claim it as a certainty. What I do say is that I was willing to commit to an actual. measurable real-world loss as a consequence if I erred.
Now things have swung to a slight Handel advantage.
Bricker, you could get out right now with like 115% ROI if you felt like it. Based on a similar conversation regarding MT I’m pretty sure you won’t.
Oh, spare us. This is about your enjoying gambling, no more, no less. If you’re correct, you made a bet that panned out; it doesn’t indicate any sort of ability to accurately predict the outcome of real world events, any more than if I predicted a die would roll above a 3 and it rolled a 5 I’d show an ability to predict dice rolls accurately.
Of course people predict things the way that they hope they’ll turn out, often. You do too. That’s not interesting. What’s interesting is analysis.
Worth reading, because after this paragraph he goes into why it’s an interesting data point.
Maybe the swing is attributable to a “backlash/sympathy vote” following the baseball practice shooting.